COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Croatia, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 511 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT  

The process for appointing the President of the Croatian Supreme Court, a challenge raised in 
the 2021 Rule of Law Report, was concluded. Responding to findings of the past Rule of Law 
Reports, amendments strengthened the State Judicial Council’s and State Attorney’s Council’s 
role  in  the  selection  of  judges  and  state  attorneys,  and,  as  committed  in  the  context  of  the 
Croatian Recovery  and  Resilience Plan, both  Councils’ resources are being increased.  New 
laws  introducing  regular  security  checks  on  judges  and  state  attorneys  conducted  by  the 
National Security Agency raised concerns. Criminal proceedings concerning cases of alleged 
corruption  among  judges  and  disciplinary  proceedings  are  ongoing.  The  level  of  perceived 
judicial  independence  remains  very  low.  The  Supreme  Court  President  disseminated  a 
questionnaire for judges to appeal court presidents, which has raised concerns among judges. 
The justice system extended electronic communication tools and decreased backlogs at higher 
court instances, but significant efficiency and quality issues remain. 

A new Strategy on the Prevention of Corruption for 2021-2030 was adopted in October 2021 
to strengthen the prevention of corruption and raise awareness about its harmfulness. While the 
effective investigation of corruption continued, including on high-level corruption, the number 
of indictments and final judgments for corruption decreased. The excessive length of criminal 
proceedings continues to undermine the effectiveness of the anti-corruption framework. The 
new  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Conflicts  of  Interest  has  strengthened  asset  declarations  and 
improved the framework on revolving doors. A Code of Ethics was adopted for members of 
Government, however, a similar one for members of Parliament and detailed rules on lobbying 
activities remain to be introduced. The new framework on protection of whistleblowers entered 
into  force.  On  the  Government’s  proposal,  Parliament  adopted  amendments  to  remove 
immunity of members of Government for corruption crimes. 

The legal framework for media pluralism and freedom guarantees the basic right of freedom of 
expression and the right to information. There are concerns about the political independence of 
the Council for Electronic Media and the management of the public service broadcaster HRT. 
The revised Electronic Media Act updated rules on the transparency of state advertising and 
media ownership, and on media concentration. However, a need remains to further strengthen 
the framework on state advertising,  including the new public tender procedure,  as  concerns 
related to the economic dependence of certain media outlets on state advertising persist. The 
establishment of an independent, self-regulatory body for the media is being discussed. The 
professional environment for journalists is impacted by verbal aggressions against journalists, 
including  by  politicians.  A  high  number  of  cases  of  abusive  litigation  targeting  journalists 
remains  a  significant  concern.  Delays  in  the  processing  of  requests  for  information  from 
journalists remain an issue. 

The number and duration of public consultations increased, which resulted in more participants 
providing their comments. Parliament further decreased the use of emergency procedures, but 
the lack of recording of voting in some remote sessions is still problematic. The Constitutional 
Court  reviewed  some  emergency  measures  and  has  accumulated  backlog  due  to  lack  of 
resources. A challenge exists regarding the follow-up to and monitoring of the Ombudsperson’s 
recommendations, and on access to information. While some preparatory steps were taken, the 
Government has not progressed in adoption of the new National Plan for Creating an Enabling 
Environment for the Civil Society Development 2021-2027. 

1 

 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

In addition  to  recalling  the commitments made under the national  Recovery and Resilience 
Plan relating to certain aspects of the justice system and the anti-corruption framework, it is 
recommended to Croatia to:  

  Reconsider  the  newly  introduced  periodic  security  checks  conducted  by  the  National 
Security Agency on all judges and state attorneys by ensuring their integrity based on other 
existing mechanisms, taking into account European standards on judicial independence and 
autonomy of prosecutors and the opinion of the Venice Commission. 
Introduce comprehensive legislation in the area of lobbying, including on persons with top 
executive positions, and set up a public register of lobbyists.   

 

  Further strengthen the framework for a fair and transparent allocation of state advertising, 
by  establishing  clear  criteria,  good  practices  and  oversight  measures  to  guarantee  the 
effective functioning of the new public tender procedure for local and regional media. 
  Address the issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation targeted at journalists, 
including  by  addressing  the  abuse  of  legal  provisions  on  defamation  and  encouraging 
awareness, taking into account European standards on the protection of journalists. 

  Ensure a more systematic follow-up to recommendations and information requests of the 

Ombudsperson. 

2 

 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

Croatia has a three-tiered justice system, with courts of general and specialised jurisdiction. 
The  first  instance  courts  of  general  jurisdiction,  dealing  with  civil  and  criminal  cases,  are 
composed of Municipal courts (34), while the County courts (15) are the second instance courts 
of  general  jurisdiction,  with  some  competences  as  first  instance  courts.  The  courts  of 
specialised  jurisdiction  comprise  nine  Commercial  and  four  Administrative  courts  at  first 
instance, and the High Criminal Court, the High Misdemeanour Court, the High Commercial 
Court and the High Administrative Court at second instance. The Supreme Court deals with all 
types of cases. The Constitutional Court conducts constitutional review. An independent State 
Judicial  Council  ensures  the  autonomy  and  independence  of  the  judiciary1.  The  State 
Attorney’s Office (DO) is an autonomous, independent judicial body, acting as the prosecution 
service,  and  undertaking  legal  actions  for  protection  of  state  property  and  applying  legal 
remedies for protection of the Constitution and laws. Each State Attorney’s Office is headed 
by a State Attorney. The State Attorney General is the head of the State Attorney Office of the 
Republic of Croatia (DORH), as the highest state attorney office. The powers over appointment 
and career of state attorneys and deputy state attorneys rest with the State Attorney’s Council, 
while the powers over representation and management rest with the State Attorney General2. 
The State Attorney’s Council is an independent self-governance body tasked with ensuring the 
autonomy  and  independence  of  the  State  Attorney’s  Office3.  Croatia  participates  in  the 
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The Croatian Bar Association is an independent, 
self-governing  professional  organisation,  which  is  in  charge  of  disciplinary  proceedings 
regarding lawyers4. 

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Croatia  continues  to  be  very  low  both 
among the general public and companies. Overall, 20% of the general population and 23% 
of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ 

1   The State Judicial Council is a judicial self-governance body with 11 members, consisting of seven judges 
elected by their peers, two university professors of law and two members of Parliament, one of whom is from 
the opposition. The members of the Council are elected for a four-year term, and can be re-elected only once. 
The  Council  is  responsible  for  appointing  and  dismissing  judges  and  court  presidents,  deciding  on  the 
immunity,  transfer  and  external  activities  of  judges,  conducting  disciplinary  proceedings  and  deciding  on 
disciplinary  responsibility  of  judges,  participating  in  training  of  judges  and  court  clerks,  adopting  a 
methodology for evaluating judges, keeping the personal records and verifying asset declarations of judges. 
2   Figures 55-57, 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard; Figure 54, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard, and Figures 55-56, 2021 

EU Justice Scoreboard. 

3   The State Attorney’s Council is a prosecutorial self-governance body with 11 members, consisting of seven 
deputy state attorneys elected by their peers, two university professors of law and two members of Parliament, 
one of whom is from the opposition. The members of the Council are elected for a four-year term, and can be 
re-elected only once. The Council's  mandate  includes  the  appointment and dismissal, deciding on external 
activities, participating in training, deciding on objections on the evaluations, keeping the personal records and 
verifying the asset declaration of state attorneys and deputy state attorneys, as well as deciding on transfer, 
conducting disciplinary proceedings and deciding on the disciplinary responsibility of deputy state attorneys. 
4   The  Assembly  of  the  Bar  elects,  in  accordance  with  the  Statute  of  the  Croatian  Bar  Association,  the 
Disciplinary Court (consisting of at least five members and deciding on more serious violations, and on appeals 
against  Disciplinary  Councils’  decisions),  and  the  Higher  Disciplinary  Court  (consisting  of  at  least  five 
members and deciding on appeals against Disciplinary Court’s decisions), while the Executive Board of the 
Bar elects Disciplinary Councils (consisting of three members and deciding on less serious violations). 

3 

 
                                                 
in  20225.  According  to  data  in  the  2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  the  perceived  judicial 
independence among both the general public and companies has increased in comparison with 
2021 (17% for the general public and 16% for companies), inverting a previously decreasing 
trend.  However,  both  figures  are  still  lower  in  comparison  with  2016  (28%  for  the  general 
public and 24% for companies). The main reason cited by the general public and companies 
for the perceived lack of independence of courts and judges is the perception of interference or 
pressure from the Government and politicians6. More detailed surveys could help to address 
these issues by examining the specific reasons among the different stakeholders in the justice 
system behind the continuously low level of perceived judicial independence7. 

The process for appointing the Supreme Court President was concluded. The Constitution 
requires the President of the Supreme Court to be appointed by Parliament upon a proposal 
from the President of the Republic. The 2021 Rule of Law Report mentioned that the then on-
going  process  for  appointing  the  new  Supreme  Court  President  led  to  an  intense  exchange 
between  highest  representatives  of  state  authorities,  which  included  repeated  negative 
statements  about  Supreme  Court  and  other  judges.  Seized  in  this  appointment  process,  the 
Constitutional  Court  on  23  March  2021  rendered  a  judgment  stressing  the  importance  of 
cooperation between state authorities8. In July 2021, the State Judicial Council published the 
third  public  call  for  candidacies  for  the  position9,  which  successfully  led  to  Parliament’s 
appointment of a new Supreme Court President on 15 October 2021. Informed, in part, by the 
difficulties in the last appointment procedure, on 11 February 2022, the procedure governing 
the selection procedure for the Supreme Court President was amended, to clarify procedural 
steps in order to avoid a future deadlock in the appointment process10. 

Amendments strengthened the State Judicial Council’s and State Attorney’s Council’s 
role in the selection of judges and state attorneys. As a follow up to the findings of the 2020 
Rule of law Report11, in March 2021, the State Judicial Council prepared an analysis of the law 

5   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); 
low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

6   Figures 51 and 53, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
7   The last comprehensive survey of court users and professional was conducted in 2015 on accessibility of the 
court service, customer service at the court, the conducting of the hearing, the judgment of the court, and the 
service provided by the lawyer. Figure 45, 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard. See also Figure 49, 2018 EU Justice 
Scoreboard, Figure 42, 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figure 42, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figure 37, 2021 
EU Justice Scoreboard, and Figure 40, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, showing that in 2016-2020, no surveys 
were conducted. 

8   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 3-4. 
9   According to Article 116(2) of the Constitution, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court is to provide its 
opinion on the candidates. On 2 September 2021, the General Assembly gave broad support (29 votes out of 
31 present) to a current judge of the Supreme Court,  who did not receive sufficient support in Parliament. 
General Assembly of the Supreme Court, 2 September 2021.  

10   According to the amendments to the Law on Courts, the State Judicial Council submits to the President of the 
Republic only timely and complete applications, and the President of the Republic must request the opinions 
of all relevant bodies (opinion of the General Session of the Supreme Court and the relevant committee of the 
Parliament) for all valid candidacies. If the President of the Republic does not nominate any of the candidates 
for the President of the Supreme Court within 15 days of receiving the last opinion from the relevant bodies, 
or if the proposed candidate is not elected by the Parliament, the Council shall annul the public call and, within 
eight days, re-initiate the procedure for the election of the President of the Supreme Court by issuing a new 
public call. Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 2. 

11   The 2020 Rule of Law Report found that the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Council are facing 
challenges following amendments that reduced their role in selecting judges and state attorneys. As regards 
judges, the 2018 amendments  Law on State Judicial Council decreased the number of points that the State 

4 

 
                                                 
on the selection of judges and proposed changes12. Informed on this aspect by the Council’s 
analysis, on the Government’s proposal, Parliament on 1 July 2022 adopted amendments13 to 
the Laws on State Judicial Council and State Attorney’s Council. These amendments increase 
the number of points that candidates can achieve in the interview with the respective Council 
and  thus  expand  the  Councils’  power  to  select  candidates.  Other  amendments  equalise  the 
requirements for all judges applying to become members of the Council, extend the time for 
temporary  secondment  of  judges  (with  their  consent),  harmonise  procedural  provisions  on 
disciplinary  proceedings  on  the  dismissal  of  judges,  introduce  a  more  consistent  distinction 
between appointment and transfer of judges including more regulated transfer process, oblige 
the tax authority to provide to the Councils the data on judges’/state attorneys’ wealth without 
delay (in view of checking asset declarations), and revise the conditions for the appointment of 
court presidents by requiring that the candidate is not subject to disciplinary proceedings and 
lift the existing limitation of two possible appointments (to a maximum of two in a row).  

Criminal proceedings concerning cases of alleged corruption among judges reported in 
the  2021  Report  and  disciplinary  proceedings  are  ongoing14.  Following  allegations  of 
violations by judges  of the obligation of impartiality and their acceptance of improper gifts 
from  the  suspect  in  a  criminal  case  before  them,  the  State  Judicial  Council  initiated  and 
concluded  several  disciplinary  proceedings.  The  State  Attorney’s  Office  launched  criminal 
investigations, and the State Judicial Council approved pre-trial detention regarding the judges 
under investigation. In 2021, the State Judicial Council initiated nearly twice the number of 
disciplinary proceedings regarding judges compared to 2020, and, in its role acting as a legal 
safeguard for judicial independence, approved four requests from the State Attorney’s Office 
for pre-trial detentions regarding judges (compared to none approved in 2020), which shows 
the increased activity of the Council with regard to integrity in the judiciary15. By February 
2022, the State Judicial Council and State Attorney’s Council concluded agreements and was 
granted  access  to  14 online registers in order to  make verification of assets  of judges  more 
efficient16. In 2021, the two Councils have not progressed on verification of asset declarations 
of judges and state attorneys17. The IT tools have become operational and the human resources 
are in place, and the State Judicial Council is planning to conduct both regular verification of 

Judicial Council can award to candidates based on the interview, which reduced the possibility of the Council 
to distinguish amongst candidates. 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in 
Croatia, pp. 3-4. 

12   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 6. 
13   Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3-5. Public consultation on amendments to both laws 

took place in April 2022. 

14   The  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report  found  that  the  State  Judicial  Council,  Judges’  Councils,  and  investigative 
authorities are reacting to a series of alleged ethical breaches and disciplinary violations by judges. 2021 Rule 
of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 6-7. 

15   In 2021, 23 disciplinary proceedings were initiated (13 in 2020) and 13 sanctions including one conditional 
dismissal, six fines and six reprimands (only one sanction in 2020  – dismissal of a judge). 2021 and 2020 
Reports on the work of the State Judicial Council and input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 
5 and 31. 

16   These 14 registers concern various types of property (e.g. movable, immovable, securities). 
17   Until  February  2022,  the  State  Attorney’s  Council  had  not  received  any  notification  about  discrepancies 
between declared and actual assets, but the State Judicial Council reacted to a journalist’s research regarding 
one judge and started verifying the judge’s assets in cooperation with the tax authority. Information received 
from the State Attorney’s Council and State Judicial Council in the context of the country visit to Croatia. The 
2021 Rule of Law Report found that shortages in human resources of the State Judicial Council and the State 
Attorney’s Councils remained, even if some limited reinforcements had been allocated to verify the newly 
published asset declarations of judges and state attorneys. 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the 
rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 1. 

5 

 
                                                 
asset  declarations,  covering  all  judges  in  one  court,  and  individual  checks,  in  case  specific 
information comes to its knowledge18. The same IT tools are also available for use by the State 
Attorney’s Council for verification of asset declarations of state attorneys. 

New  laws  introducing  regular  security  checks  on  judges  and  state  attorneys  raised 
concerns. On 11 February 2022, Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on Courts and 
the Law on the State Attorney’s Office empowering the National Security Agency19 to conduct 
security  checks  on  all  judges  and  state  attorneys20.  The  laws’  explanatory  memorandums 
justified  the  reform  to  be  ‘inextricably  linked  to  the  conditions  for  the  proper  exercise  of 
judicial function/state attorney function’ and stated the reason for reform were high levels of 
perception of corruption in the judiciary and some individual cases of inappropriate behaviour 
of judges. The security checks will be conducted every five years, unlike before, when they 
were only conducted once – before the first appointment of a candidate judge or before a judge 
was allocated organised crime and corruption cases21. The amended laws provide for several 
procedural safeguards, amongst which that a special panel composed of Supreme Court judges 
decides on the existence of security obstacles based on the report from the National Security 
Agency22. The introduction of security checks drew criticism from the European Commission 
stating that the measure  could  raise concerns in  the light of European standards on judicial 
independence  and  autonomy  of  prosecutors23.  Further  criticism  was  raised  by  the  Supreme 

18   Information received from the State Judicial Council in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
19   Security and Intelligence Agency – SOA. 
20   New article 86.a of the Law on Courts and new article 99.a of the Law on State Attorney’s Office. 
21   Based on 2015 and 2018 amendments to the Law on the State Judicial Council, the National Security Agency 
(NSA)  has  been  conducting  security  checks  on  every  candidate  judge  before  their  first  appointment  at  a 
Municipal, Commercial or Administrative Court, or at the Supreme Court. The Council ascertains, based on 
report from the National Security Agency, whether a security obstacle exists. The candidate judge can see this 
report and provide comments to the Council. Judicial review is possible against Council’s decision rejecting a 
candidate. In 2018, the Constitutional Court found that the 2015 amendments comply with the Constitution, 
as the security checks could assist the Council in selecting the best candidates for appointment. Judgment of 
the Constitutional Court of 22 May 2018, U-I-3684/2015, paras. 13 and 15.  
However, when the newly introduced security checks were first applied in practice concerning a candidate for 
a Supreme Court judge, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to fair trial given that the Council 
did not give the applicant access to the results of the security check. The Court found that the Council failed 
to  give  reasons  for  its  final  assessment  on  the  existence  of  security  impediments  and  for  preventing  the 
applicant  from  having  access  to  the  security  check  report.  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  18 
December  2018,  U-III-1709/2018.  The  repeated  appointment  procedure  before  the  Council  was  again 
reviewed  before  the  Constitutional  Court.  The  Court  annulled  the  Council’s  decision  not  to  appoint  the 
candidate  as  a  Supreme  Court  judge  due  to  existence  of  security  obstacles,  as  Council’s  vote  lacked  the 
necessary  majority. The Court also found the Council did not respect  the procedure as it did not ask for a 
supplementary security check to respond to the candidate’s evidence opposing the NSA report. Judgment of 
the Constitutional Court of 17 September 2020, U-III-2390/2019, paras. 27-33.  
The security checks regarding judges dealing with organised crime and corruption offences (‘USKOK’ judges) 
have been introduced with 2010 amendments to the Law on Courts. 

22   For example, other safeguards regarding judges are: the finding of a security obstacle by this Supreme Court 
panel may only be sanctioned in disciplinary or criminal proceedings; and the availability of legal remedies 
regarding the security check. However, in case of deputy state attorneys, a panel of five deputy state attorneys 
appointed by the Council of the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia decides on the existence of 
security obstacles, which is not a judicial body. 

23   On 1 December 2021, while the proposed amendments were with the Government before being sent back to 
the Parliament for second reading, Commissioner Reynders sent a letter to the Minister of Justice, stating that 
the measure could contribute to a generalised suspicion among the public about the judiciary. Considering the 
sensitivity of such reform, he encouraged the Croatian Government to consult the Venice Commission. The 
letter also noted that judicial integrity and fighting against corruption within the judiciary are crucial for the 
rule of law and for the public trust in the judicial system. 

6 

 
                                                 
Court24, the Association of Croatian Judges25, and the European Association of Judges26. Both 
the  Supreme  Court27  and  the  Association  of  Judges28  seized  the  Constitutional  Court  for  a 
constitutional  review  of  the  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Courts,  and  on  16  May  2022,  the 
Constitutional  Court temporarily suspended the application of the amended law pending  its 
final  decision  on  constitutionality29.  In  an  Opinion  dated  21  March  2022,  the  Venice 
Commission  expressed  regret  that  amendments  were  adopted  before  this  opinion  was 
published,  and  recommended  Croatia  to  reconsider  its  approach  and  develop  an  alternative 
strategy to ensure judges’ integrity, based on existing mechanisms30. While conducting regular 
security  checks  on  all  judges  and  state  attorneys,  sensitive  personal  information  will  be 
collected  by  the  National  Security  Agency  outside  the  regular  disciplinary  or  criminal 
proceedings and without the safeguards contained therein31. It is important that the regime on 
security  checks  takes  into  account  European  standards  regarding  judicial  independence  and 
autonomy of prosecutors, which provide that ‘independence means that the judiciary is free 
from external pressure, and is not subject to political influence or manipulation, in particular 
by  the  executive  branch’32.  Security  checks  on  judges,  especially  when  carried  out  by  an 
executive body, may constitute such an external pressure33. When security/integrity checks are 
not carried out by self-governing bodies of the judiciary themselves but by an external body, 
utmost consideration must be given to respecting the principles of separation of powers and 
checks  and  balances34.  The  amendments  raise  concern,  since  the  security  checks  would  be 
conducted by the National Security Agency, a body under the control of the executive, and 
because they would be regular and conducted for all existing judges and state attorneys, not 

24   The  Supreme  Court  stated  that  involving  the  National  Security  Agency,  which  is  part  of  the  executive,  is 
contrary  to  the  principle  of  separation  of  powers  and  judicial  independence.  The  decision  was  adopted 
unanimously. Statement by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court: regular security checks on judges 
are unacceptable, 29 November 2021. In its earlier opinion on the draft proposal, the Supreme Court did not 
oppose the introduction of security checks. 

25   Statement by the President of the Association of Judges, 20 October 2021. In its earlier opinion on the draft 

proposal, the Association in principle did not oppose the introduction of security checks. 

26   The European Association of Judges found that the National Security Agency is part of the executive power 
and  that  the  introduction  of  security  checks  ‘opens  the  door  to  [its]  undue  influence  brought  […]  on  the 
judiciary’, and concluded that the  measures are  not compatible  with international and European standards. 
Opinion of the European Association of Judges on repeated security checks, 7 February 2022.  

27   The decision was adopted unanimously and included a request to Constitutional Court to temporarily suspend 
the application of article 86.a of Law on Courts. Statement by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, 
14 March 2022.  

28   Statement by the Association of Judges of 7 March 2022. 
29   Decision of the Constitutional Court of 16 May 2022, U-I-2215/2022, U-I-2751/2022 and U-I-2875/2022.  
30   According to the Venice Commission, if the security checks of judges by an executive body were introduced, 
there is a risk that perceived lack of independence of the judiciary, notably on account of alleged interference 
or pressure from government and politicians, would even be aggravated. The Venice Commission also found 
that the reform was not justified and that the existing Croatian legislation already provided for a wide array of 
mechanisms to ensure integrity of the judicial corpus, for example: (i) annual asset declarations  which are 
checked by the State Judicial Council; (ii) annual assessments by the court presidents (regarding the minimum 
output and the behaviour of  the judge concerned); (iii)  the possibility of disciplinary proceedings; (iv)  the 
possibility of criminal liability (judges only enjoy functional immunity); and (v) the existing possibilities for 
security checks. Venice Commission opinion (CDL(2022)005), paras. 18, 35-36. 

31   The Venice Commission expressed concern that such a measure risks contributing to citizens’ lack of trust in 

the judiciary and in its independence. Venice Commission opinion (CDL(2022)005), para. 36. 

32   Venice  Commission,  Rule  of  Law  checklist  (CDL-AD(2016)007),  para.  74.  See  also  Recommendation 

CM/Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 11. 

33   Venice Commission opinion (CDL(2022)005), para. 13.  
34   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2021)046), para. 16. 

7 

 
                                                 
only  for  candidates  before  their  appointment35.  On  1  July  2022,  Parliament  adopted 
amendments that introduced a new disciplinary offence or a ground for dismissal, in case an 
existing judge or state attorney would refuse to give consent for the National Security Agency 
to conduct a security check, respectively36. 

A questionnaire for judges disseminated by the Supreme Court President to presidents 
of  all  second  instance  courts  raised  concerns  among  judges.  On  9  February  2022,  the 
President of the Supreme Court sent a letter to the presidents of the 20 second instance courts37 
requesting information on the external activities of the court’s judges (and their income), their 
membership  in  associations,  public  appearances,  the  employment  at  courts  of  their  family 
members/relatives, and any lawsuits brought by them38. The stated reason for the questionnaire 
was to collect information on the situation on the ground and dispel doubts in the public about 
the judges’ focus of activities. Some of this information is already covered by the State Judicial 
Council’s competences regarding asset declarations39. While most addressed judges provided 
a summary of replies, others publicly objected and contested the competence of the Supreme 
Court  President  to  ask  these  questions,  of  which  some  interfered  with  the  judges’  right  to 
privacy,  freedom  of  association  and  freedom  of  expression.  The  Supreme  Court  President 
summarised the results of the survey, and called for developing more precise ethical and legal 
rules, and for organising a public discussion involving all main judicial stakeholders40.  It is 
important  that  any  data  collection  regarding  judges  takes  into  account  Council  of  Europe 
recommendations regarding judicial independence in relation to external activities and ethics, 
which  provide  that  judges  may  engage  in  other  activities41  but  should  be  guided  by  ethical 
principles42. 

Quality  

Administrative  courts  were  integrated  into  the  unified  ICT  system  and  the  use  of 
electronic communication increased, but room for improvement remains. Despite some 

35   From a comparative perspective, in the few other Member States where bodies comparable to the National 
Security Agency conduct security checks on judges, this happens only regarding candidates or for judges in 
specific positions. The framework introduced in Croatia is therefore unique in the European Union. Figure 56, 
2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. In a few Member States, the National Security agency conducts a security check 
only once - before the first appointment of a candidate judge, while in a few other Member States, such a check 
is conducted on candidate judges only upon an explicit request.  

36   Amendments concern the Laws on State Judicial Council and State Attorney’s Council. 
37   To 15 County Courts, the High Criminal Court, High Commercial Court, High Misdemeanour Court and High 

Administrative Court.  

38   More  precisely,  the  questions  asked  how  often  judges  work  as  private  arbiters,  lecturers  for  private 
companies/at  universities,  and  how  much  they  would  approximately  earn  per  year  from  these  activities. 
Furthermore, the survey asked about how often judges publish scientific articles or books, whether they are 
members of any sport or other associations, and whether judges make public statements. Finally, the questions 
asked  whether  judges’  family  members  or  relatives  are  employed  at  any  court  and  whether  they  are  legal 
professionals, and  whether the judges have  within last five years submitted any suits against journalists or 
publishers and for what amount. 

39   Apart from general rules on impartiality and conflict of interest, the legislation does not set any requirements 

regarding membership in associations for judges, outside the general rules on impartiality. 

40   Letter by the Supreme Court President of 4 April 2022 to the State Judicial Council, Association of Judges, 
Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, Parliament, Association of Journalists and NGO Miko Tripalo.  
41   To  avoid  actual  or  perceived  conflicts  of  interest,  their  participation  should  be  restricted  to  activities 
compatible with their impartiality and independence. Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee 
of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 21. 

42   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 21. 

8 

 
                                                 
 
improvement,  considerable  room  for  improvement  of  Information  and  Communication 
Technologies (ICT) for case management and the electronic communication between courts 
and  parties  remains43.  As  regards  the  use  of  ICT  in  case  management,  the  first  and  second 
instance  administrative  courts  were  integrated  into  the  unified  ‘e-File’  case  management 
system already used by all other courts44. In addition, the ‘e-Communication’ system, which 
allows  the  electronic  exchange  of  documents  with  courts,  has  been  integrated  in  nearly  all 
courts, except for the criminal department of the Supreme Court, three Municipal Courts, the 
High  Misdemeanor  Court,  the  High  Criminal  Court,  and  the  criminal  and  misdemeanor 
departments of the courts45. In 2021, the use of e-Communication with courts further increased, 
between two and seven-fold (compared to 2020) in some cases 46. The number of documents 
sent and received by individual claimants in Commercial and Municipal Court remained low, 
at  around  10  500  in  total  in  202147.  However,  while  procedural  rules  have  partially  been 
amended  to  allow  for  electronic  communication48,  room  for  improvement  remains  for 
communication  of  courts  and  prosecution,  particularly  in  criminal  proceedings49.  The 
publication of first and second instance court judgments, which could contribute to increasing 
transparency and consistency of case-law, remains very limited50. 

Resources  of  the  State  Judicial  Council  and  the  State  Attorney’s  Council  are  being 
increased. The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the State Judicial Council and the State 
Attorney’s  Council  had  received  some  temporary  reinforcements,  but  a  shortage  in  human 
resources remained51. The milestone under the Recovery and Resilience Plan required Croatia 
to  increase the human resources of both  Councils by the end of March 202252.  In February 

43   Figures 44-45 and 47, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
44   The four first-instance Administrative courts and the High Administrative Court were integrated in June 2021. 

Input from Croatia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 

45   In  criminal  cases,  the  Supreme  Court  does  not  yet  communicate  electronically  with  lower  courts  or 
lawyers/parties. Information received from the Supreme Court in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
The three Municipal Courts are Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb, and Municipal Misdemeanor Courts in 
Split and Zagreb. Written contribution from the Government following the country visit to Croatia. 

46   This was the case among companies, public notaries, lawyers and court experts, but among the insolvency 
practicioners and interpreters the increases were smaller, alongside with lower total number of documents that 
were exchanged by electronic means. Written contribution from Ministry of Justice and Public Administration 
following the country visit to Croatia. 

47   Supreme Court, 2021 Report, pp. 125 and 127. 
48   To be noted, that further improvements to procedural laws to allow for expansion of electronic communication 
are on-going. On a proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted the Council Implementing Decision 
of 16 July 2021 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Croatia, under which 
the Milestone no. 216 states: ‘Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act allowing the use of ICT in criminal 
proceedings, including the introduction of remote hearings, the extension of the possibility of giving on-line 
testimonies for victims of crime, the possibility to communicate with lawyers via a secure video link and the 
preparation of hearings for accused persons in pre-trial detention, and the introduction of e-communications’. 

49   Figures 41-49, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
50   Figure 48, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 

in Croatia, p. 7. 

51   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 7-8. As stated in the 
2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  the  State  Judicial  Council  and  the  State  Attorney’s  Council  have  considerable 
powers, but their administrative capacity remains very limited. 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on 
the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 4-5. 

52   On proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted the Council Implementing Decision of 16 July 2021 
on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Croatia, under which the Milestone 
no.  214  states:  ‘Electronic  tools  and  adequate  administrative  capacities  shall  be  in  operation  for  the  State 
Judicial Council and the State Attorney's Council, in order to improve the quality of the work of both Councils. 
Their human resources shall be increased by 50% compared to 2021 baseline (by recruiting at least 4 persons) 
and the linking the DSV and the DOV to the common land registry and cadastre (ZIS) and tax administration 

9 

 
                                                 
2022, the State Judicial Council functioned with five permanent officials (the State Attorney’s 
Council with four) and two temporary secondments transferred from the Ministry of Justice 
and Public Administration (one transferred to the State Attorney’s Council), and was preparing 
vacancies for permanent employment of two additional officials (one for the State Attorney’s 
Council), to replace the secondments. These improvements are a step in the right direction to 
address the administrative capacity of the two independent Councils and ensure their effective 
functioning, including on verification of asset declarations53.  

Efficiency 

The backlogs and length of proceedings continued to decrease at second instance and in 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  mostly  increased  or  stagnated  at  first  instance  courts.  The 
backlogs  and  length  of  proceedings  remain  among  the  most  considerable  in  the  EU54.  The 
COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected the efficiency of first instance courts, while second 
instance and Supreme Court mostly showed improved efficiency. In 2021, the average length 
of proceedings in the first instance courts remained among the longest in the EU and mostly 
increased or stagnated, with 1 000 days in litigious commercial cases (the same as in 2020), 
982 days in criminal cases at County courts (804 in 2020) and 765 days in criminal cases at 
Municipal courts (705 in 2020)55. The average length of proceedings mostly decreased before 
the County courts, where litigious civil cases at second instance took only 166 days (233 in 
2020),  and  criminal  cases  at  second  instance  took  91  days  (112  in  2020).  At  first  instance 
courts,  backlogs  decreased  by  12%  in  commercial  and  by  4%  in  administrative  cases 
(compared to 2020), but continued to increase by 22% in 2021 in litigious civil cases, and by 
6% in criminal cases (before Municipal courts). Before County courts, backlogs stagnated in 
appeal in litigious civil cases and in first instance criminal cases, and but increased by 25% in 
appeal  in  criminal  cases.  Before  second  instance  High  Commercial  Court  and  High 
Administrative Court, the average length of proceedings decreased (from 558 to 363 days, and 
from 223 to 190 days, respectively), and so did the backlog (by about 25% in both courts). In 
the Supreme Court, the backlogs decreased by about 8% in civil and 60% in criminal cases56. 
At the end of 2021, the backlog of court cases older than 7 years further decreased (by about 
12% compared to end 2020)57. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The Ministry of Justice and Public Administration is the central corruption prevention body, 
with  a  dedicated  unit  for  the  coordination  and  the  implementation  of  the  anti-corruption 
strategy and related action plans. The Ministry of Justice and Public Administration is also the 
central  body  for  exchanging  data  on  the  suppression  of  corruption.  The  Council  for  the 

information system, shall be implemented in order to establish an effective mechanism for verifying the asset 
declarations of state officials’.  

53   See above, under Independence section. 2021 Rule of Law Report found that shortages in human resources of 
the State Judicial Council and the State Attorney’s Councils remain, even if some limited reinforcements have 
been allocated to verify the newly published asset declarations of judges and state attorneys. 2021 Rule of Law 
Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 2, and 5-6. 

54   Figures 6-15, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
55   In first instance litigious civil cases (before Municipal courts) it further decreased to 673 days (826 in 2020). 

Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Croatia.  
56   Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
57   The  total  number  of  pending  cases  older  than  7  years  before  Municipal,  Commercial,  County  and  High 

Commercial courts was 19 064 at the end of 2021. Supreme Court (2022), 2021 Report, p. 44. 

10 

 
                                                 
Prevention of Corruption58 and the National Council for Monitoring the Implementation of the 
Strategy for Combating Corruption, report to the Parliament twice a year. The Office for the 
Suppression  of  Corruption  and  Organised  Crime  (USKOK)  is  the  specialised  prosecutor’s 
office in charge of corruption offences, and the National Police Office for the Suppression of 
Corruption and Organised Crime (PNUSKOK) is the specialised police department in charge 
of  detecting,  and  investigating  complex  corruption-related  crimes.  The  new  High  Criminal 
Court began its operation in 2021 as a second instance court in corruption cases prosecuted by 
the  USKOK.  The  State  Commission  on  Control  of  Public  Procurement  Procedures  is  an 
independent  tribunal  responsible  for  reviewing  appeals  regarding  public  procurements.  The 
Ombudsperson’s office is managing reports made by whistleblowers. 

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the public sector remains high. In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency 
International, Croatia scores 47/100, ranks 24th in the European Union and 63th globally59. This 
perception  remained  relatively  stable60  over  the  past  five  years.  The  2022  Special 
Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 94% of respondents consider corruption widespread 
in  their  country  (EU  average  68%)  and  60%  of  respondents  feel  personally  affected  by 
corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%)61. As regards businesses, 93% of companies 
consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 66% consider that that corruption 
is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%)62. Furthermore, 31% of respondents find 
that  there  are  enough  successful  prosecutions  to  deter  people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU 
average 34%)63, while 16% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing 
a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%)64.  

The  new  2021-2030  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  aims  to  strengthen  the  prevention  of 
corruption  and  raise  awareness  on  the  harmfulness  of  corruption,  while  the  first 
implementation plan is in preparation. The Croatian Recovery and Resilience Plan contains 
a milestone which required Croatia to adopt a new anti-corruption strategic framework by the 
end  of  2021  and  to  manage  corruption  risks  in  priority  areas65.  On  29  October  2021,  the 

58   A  government  advisory  body  composed  of  representatives  of  public  institutions  and  non-governmental 

organisations. 

59   Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. The level of perceived corruption is 
categorised as follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public sector corruption 
scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), high (scores 
below 50). 

60   In 2016, the score was 49, while in 2021, the score is 47. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

61   Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022). The Eurobarometer data on citizens’ corruption perception and experience 

is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 

62   Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022). The Eurobarometer 
data on business attitudes towards corruption as is updated every second year. The previous data set is the 
Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

63   Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022). 
64   Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022). 
65   On proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted the Council Implementing Decision of 16 July 2021 
on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Croatia, under which the Milestone 
no. 231 states: ‘The strategy shall include measures to manage corruption risks in priority areas and to meet 
the following five objectives: i) strengthening the institutional and normative framework for the fight against 
corruption,  ii)  increasing  transparency  and  openness  of  public  administration  bodies,  iii)  improving  the 
integrity  and  conflict  of  interest  management  system,  iv)  strengthening  of  anti-corruption  potentials  in  the 

11 

 
                                                 
Parliament adopted the new Strategy for the Prevention of Corruption 2021-2030. The strategy 
lists  95  measures  to  achieve  five  objectives  and  will  be  complemented  by  three-year 
implementation  plans.  The  first  implementation  plan,  covering  the  period  2022-202466  is 
expected to be adopted in the summer 2022and includes first steps to start implementing most 
of  the  measures  listed  in  the  Strategy67.  The  Council  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  will 
monitor the triennial implementation plans on the side of the executive branch. This monitoring 
will be complemented on the parliamentary side through the work of the National Council for 
Monitoring the Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy68.  

While the effective investigation of corruption continued, including in high-level cases, 
the  number  of  indictments  and  final  judgments  for  corruption  decreased.  Both  the 
specialised  police  (PNUSKOK)  and  prosecution  (USKOK)  report  that  the  cooperation  in 
investigating  and  prosecuting  corruption  offences  is  working  well69.  During  the  last  twelve 
months, eight financial investigators have been recruited to assist prosecutors with economic 
and  financial  crimes70.  National  authorities  reported  that  available  resources  are  considered 
sufficient and specialised anti-corruption trainings are available online.  There are numerous 
cases reported of high-level corruption cases being taken forward71. The 2021 annual report of 
the  State  Attorney’s  Office72  shows  that the  number  of  criminal  notifications  on  corruption 
slightly  increased73,  as  well  as  the  number  of  investigations74.  However,  in  2021,  the  State 
Attorney’s Office initiated fewer indictments (69) for corruption than in 2020 (84) and in 2019 
(109). In the same period, the Courts delivered judgments regarding 67 persons, compared to 
92 persons in 202075.  

The excessive length of criminal proceedings has increased and continued to undermine 
the  effectiveness  of  the  anti-corruption  system.  As  noted  in  past  Rule  of  Law  Reports76, 

public procurement system, and v) raising public awareness of the harmfulness of corruption, the necessity of 
reporting irregularities and strengthening transparency’.  
66   Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 19.  
67   Information received from the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration in the context of country visit to 
Croatia. The measures include cashless payment of Police fines, upgrade of Police IT equipment, funding for 
non-profit media, training of judges, prosecutors and court/prosecution management on communication with 
media,  ethics  workshops  for  tax  officials,  and  a  nation-wide  campaign  to  raise  public  awareness  of  the 
harmfulness of corruption. Draft of the Action Plan in public consultation.  

68   Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 19-20. In a June 2022 hearing before Parliament to 
examine possible political influence on the work of the State Attorney’s Office, its head stated that politicians 
should refrain from commenting in public on its decisions to take forward a case or not.   

69   Information received from PNUSKOK and USKOK in the context of the country visit to Croatia.  
70   Written contribution received from the State Attorney’s Office in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
71   Examples are listed in State Attorney’s Office (2022), 2021 Report, pp. 201-202. 
72   The data that is mentioned in the rest of this paragraph all comes from State Attorney’s Office (2022), Report 

for 2021, pp. 198-199. 

73   In  2021,  the  State  Attorney’s  Office  received  criminal  notifications  regarding  1  366  alleged  suspects  of 
corruption offences, representing 71% of the total criminal notifications received by USKOK (up from 1 271 
in 2020 and 1 003 in 2019). This shows about 7% increase in the number of alleged suspects compared to 
2020. To be noted that more than 90% of these  complaints were dismissed and most of them arrived from 
citizens, while in 10% decision was made to open an investigation. 

74   In 2021, investigations were opened concerning 135 persons, compared to 108 in 2020 and 142 in 2019. 
75   Out of the 67 final judgments in 2021, 59 were convictions for corruption (ie. a succes rate of 88%, compared 
to a rate of 85% in 2020). As regards the sanctions for corruption offences, 36 persons received jail sentences 
(31 in 2020; out of 36 convictions in 2021, for 20 persons jail sentence was changed into work for the public 
good)) and 19 conditional sentences (47 in 2020). 

76   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 12; 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 11. 

12 

 
                                                 
Courts continued to experience efficiency challenges in adjudicating corruption-related cases77. 
In 2021, criminal cases on average took 982 days before County courts (804 in 2020) and 765 
days before Municipal courts (705 in 2020)78. In 2021, the length of investigations led by the 
state attorneys in USKOK slightly increased (also due to complexity of cases and COVID-19 
pandemic).  In  only  about  35%  of  USKOK  cases,  the  investigation  was  finished  within  six 
months or sooner (28% in 2020). In about 40% of cases, the investigation lasted up to one year 
(35% in 2020), while in the remaining 25% of cases, the investigation lasted up to 18 month or 
above (35% in 2020)79. The Anti-Corruption Strategy envisages that the Criminal Procedure 
Code  and  the  Law  on  the  Office  for  the  Suppression  of  Corruption  and  Organised  Crime 
(USKOK) will be amended, and that the capacity of USKOK will be increased to ensure the 
completion of proceedings within a reasonable time80.  

On the Government’s proposal, Parliament adopted amendments to remove immunity of 
the  members  of  the  Government  for  corruption  crimes.  The  abolishment  of  political 
immunities of Government members was announced in the Government’s Programme 2020-
202481.  The  law  foresees  immunity  for  all  crimes  punishable  with  up  to  five  year 
imprisonment82.  On  1  July  2022,  Parliament,  on  the  Government’s  proposal,  adopted 
amendments to remove immunity of members of Government for all corruption offences that 
are prosecuted ex officio, i.e. independent of a complaint. The Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-
2030 foresees an assessment of the existing framework with a view to improve the legislation 
to fight bribery in international business transactions83, which concluded that improvements 
can be made as to the definition, the liability of legal persons, sanctions and enforcement84.  

The rules on asset declarations and on revolving doors have been strengthened in the new 
Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest.  The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that 
limited progress had been made on the strengthening of the legal framework on prevention of 
conflict  of  interest85.  Croatia’s  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  contains  a  milestone  which 
required Croatia to revise the conflict of interest legislation by the end of 202186. Accordingly, 
the  new  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Conflict  of  Interest  entered  into  force  on  25  December 

77   For example, the Annual report of the Supreme Court for 2020 noted clearance rate of only 78% in relation to 
cases on corruption and organised crime and the disposition time of 1 425 days in the first instance courts. 
According to the Report, the reasons lie in an inadequate number of judges (29) working on these cases in an 
inadequate  number  of  courtrooms  (19) preventing  the  courts  to  be  more  efficient.  The  2021  Report of  the 
Supreme Court does not contain such data. 

78   Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration in the context of the country visit 

to Croatia. The data refer to the average duration of all criminal first instance proceedings. 

79   State Attorney’s Office (2022), 2021 Report, p. 163. 
80   Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 27. 
81   Croatian Government, Programme of the Government 2020-2024, p. 45.  
82   Bribery is sanctioned in the criminal code with penalties up to ten years imprisonment, but the penalties for 

other corruption offences do not all meet this threshold. 

83   Measure 4.1.12. 
84  OECD (2022), Fighting Transnational Bribery in Croatia, Assessment of Legal and Policy Frameworks. The 

project was supported by the European Commission. 

85   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 12-13.  
86   On proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted the Council Implementing Decision of 16 July 2021 
on the approval of the assessment of the Recovery and Resilience Plan for Croatia, under which Milestone no. 
232 states what the amendments to the Act on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest shall include, amongst it 
also that they should extend the scope of the Act in terms of addressees, oblige certain categories of addressees 
of the law to fill in asset declarations annually and to make declarations within given deadlines, and remedy 
any potential conflict of interest.  

13 

 
                                                 
202187. The law further clarified the procedures before the Commission for the Resolution of 
Conflicts of Interests88. Asset declarations have to be submitted once a year by a greater number 
of obliged entities89 and certain definitions have been expanded, such as the concept of private 
gain, which now includes not only material, but also non-material gain90. The law introduced 
a previously missing obligation to declare a conflict of interest91. It obliges a person to either 
remove the conflict of interest or remove themselves from decision-making. The Commission 
for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest can now impose higher minimum fines and a new 
fine has been envisaged for the heads of public bodies who do not submit the required public 
information,  both  of  which  could  contribute  to  more  effective  investigations92.  Court 
judgments clarified that the Commission’s sanctioning powers do not extend to violation of 
“principles of public office”, which is notably broader than a conflict of interests93. The new 
law also did not introduce sanctions for such violations, which, according to the Government, 
are envisaged to be addressed by new ethical bodies94. The cooling-off period95 is extended 
from  12  to  18  months96.  Following  a  first  assessment  of  the  draft  law  before  the  adoption, 
GRECO  concluded  that  it  appeared  to  go  in  the  right  direction  as  intended  by  its 
recommendations97.  

The  Government  committed  to  increasing  the  resources  of  the  Commission  for  the 
Resolution of Conflicts of Interest. The Government stated that in 2022 the administrative 
and technical capacities of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest, currently 
consisting  of  five  members  and  14  employees,  will  be  strengthened  with  five  additional 
employees (nine altogether in next three years)98. Furthermore, due to the lack of space for new 

87  Written contribution from the Government following the country visit to Croatia. 
88   For example, Articles 42-45 of the new law. The decisions of the Commission on Resolution of Conflicts of 

Interest can be challenged before the High Administrative Court, which should decide within 90 days.  

89   Among the additional obliged entities are the management of publicly owned companies and companies whose 
majority  owners  are  publicly  owned  companies,  including  health  care  organisations  and  heads  of  certain 
independent  bodies,  heads  or  managing  boards  of  institutions,  agencies,  funds  and  other  institutions  who, 
depending on their competence in framework of their work manage a considerable amount of assets or who 
are otherwise evaluated as a sensitive to risk of corruption. This should result in about 1 000 more obliged 
entities. Public access to asset declarations of judicial officials has been enabled via an online application as 
of 4 January 2021 and steps are taken to improve the verification of these asset declarations. Input from Croatia 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 22-25.  

90   Article 5(1)8. Additionally, the definition of family member now has a broader definition, which includes life 
partners, and the definition of business relations now includes all relations with the exclusion of state aid in 
the event of a natural disaster. 

91   Article 9 of the new Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest. 
92   Written contribution from the Government following the country visit to Croatia. 
93   The decisions of the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest have been subject to a number of 
judgments  of  the  administrative  courts  and  the  Constitutional  Court.  Several  judgments  concerned  the 
interpretation  of  article  5  (now  article  6,  containing  principles  to  which  public  officials  must  adhere  in 
executing their public duties) and the possibility for the Commission to impose sanctions on public officials 
solely  on  the  basis  of  this  provision.  On  10  December  2020,  the  High  Administrative  Court  delivered  its 
judgment on an appeal and, by reference to the provisions in article 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Conflict 
of Interests, ruled that the Commission does not have the powers to sanction only a violation of principles of 
conduct of public officials.  

94   See  below,  paragraph  on  ethics  rules  for  members  of  the  Government  and  Parliament.  2021  Rule  of  Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 12.  

95   This limitation concerns companies that were supervised by the body in which the official served or conducted 

business with. 

96   Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 24-25. 
97   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round - Compliance Report, p. 6. 
98   Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 17 and information received from the Commission for 

the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest in the context of country visit to Croatia. 

14 

 
                                                 
employees, funds are provided for accommodation and equipment for new employees99. While 
its budget  increased  in  2020,  the budget  decreased in  2021 to  a level  comparable  to  that of 
2019100. So far, the Commission was able to deliver on instructions and opinions on conflict of 
interests101.  With  the  enlarged  circle  of  officials  that  have  to  make  asset  declarations,  the 
Commission  will  now  have  to  process  nearly  the  double  number  of  declarations102.  The 
Commission  reported  that,  due  to  a  lack  of  resources,  it  is  only  able  to  do  a  preliminary, 
administrative check for all of the asset declarations received. However, it is unable to perform 
the regular checks required by law, which consist of collecting and sharing data, and comparing 
the reported data on the assets from the official's submitted declarations with the data acquired 
from  the  Tax  Administration  and  other  competent  bodies  in  Croatia103.  A  corresponding 
milestone under the Recovery and Resilience Plan sets out that Croatia will improve the asset 
declaration  information  systems  by  the  end  of  June  2024104.  A  project  to  improve  the 
application for filling and checking asset declarations, as well as the process of filling in asset 
declarations itself, is planned105. GRECO considers that capacity-strengthening efforts need to 
continue106. 

A Code of Conduct was adopted for members of the Government, but one for members 
of Parliament is still missing. A Code of Ethics for state level civil servants is in place since 
2011107,  and  Commissioners  are  appointed  in  all  state  and  judicial  bodies  with  the  task  of 
monitoring the implementation of this Code of Ethics and resolving complaints of unethical 
behaviour. The Ministry of Interior is developing a new Code of Ethics for Police Officers to 
replace  the  existing  Code  from  2012108.  Ethics  and  integrity  for  state  civil  servants  are 
embedded as a mandatory subject into various stages of initial and in-service police training109. 
The corresponding milestone under the Recovery and Resilience Plan requires Croatia to adopt 
Codes of Conduct for parliamentarians and for officials in the executive bodies by the end of 
2023110.  In  May  2022,  the  Government  adopted  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  members  of  the 
Government and certain officials in top executive functions111. It remains to be seen, however, 

99  Written contribution from the Government following the country visit to Croatia. 
100  The budget was approx. EUR 900 000 (in 2019), EUR 1 million (in 2020) and EUR 850 000 (in 2021). 
101  In the first 45 days of 2022, the Commission for Resolution of Conflict of interests issued around 100 opinions 
the first month and a half of 2022 (compared to 158 in total in 2021) and more than 110 instructions (compared 
to 52 in total in 2021).  

102  Written contribution  from the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest  in the context of  the 
country visit to Croatia. According to evaluations, about 10 officials would be needed to deal only with asset 
declarations.  Information  received  from  the  Commission  for  the  Resolution  of  Conflicts  of  Interest  in  the 
context of the country visit to Croatia. 

103  Written  contribution  from the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest  in the context of the 

country visit to Croatia. The Commission initiated 80 regular checks and finished 28. 

104  The Council Implementing Decision of 16 July 2021 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and 
resilience plan for Croatia, Milestone no. 241 states: ‘The current system for submitting the asset statement of 
officials shall be improved by allowing for the  automatic filling of data  from available  public sources and 
improving the preconditions for checking the information contained in the asset statement of state officials 
and judicial officials’.  

105  Milestone no. 241. 
106  GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round - Compliance Report, p. 6. 
107  Ethical Code of State Officials, Official Gazette 40/201.  
108  GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round - Compliance Report, p. 8. 
109  GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round - Compliance Report, p. 9. 
110  On proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted the Council Implementing Decision of 16 July 2021 
on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Croatia, under which the Milestone 
no. 234 states: ‘The Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians and officials in the executive will provide guidance 
on conflicts of interest and other integrity issues.’ 
111  Link to the Official Journal: /eli/official/2022/54/701. 

15 

 
                                                 
how this Code will be applied. The Code of Conduct is to be enforced by a specific Council, 
of which only two out of five members are external experts. The Council can also only express 
itself on compliance with the Code at the request of the official, its immediate superior, or at 
the request of the Office of the Prime Minister. No developments have been made regarding a 
code of ethics for members of Parliament. 

An obligation for the local and regional authorities to adopt ethics codes was introduced 
in the new Law on the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest. According to Anti-Corruption 
Strategy 2021-2030, there are 142 Code of Ethics in force in the administrative bodies at local 
and regional government level, representing only 25% out of 576 local and regional units. The 
new  Strategy  aims  at  improving  the  situation  by  2030.  The  new  Law  on  the  Prevention  of 
Conflict of Interests imposes an obligation on local and regional representative bodies to adopt 
codes of conducts.  It also provides that the local and regional representative bodies need to 
specify  the  body  to  decide  on  ethical  violations  at  second  instance,  implying  that  the  first 
instance  decisions  should  be  made  by  municipal  councils112.  The  national  authorities  are 
supporting local authorities, including by developing guidelines.  

Comprehensive legislation remains to be introduced in the area of lobbying activities. The 
Ministry of Justice and Public Administration set up a working group for that purpose in 2021, 
which held one meeting so far113. The finalisation of the draft new legal act is foreseen by end 
of 2022114. In its latest assessment, GRECO concludes that the recommendation to regulate 
how persons entrusted with top executive functions engage in contacts with lobbyists and to 
disclose sufficient information about the purpose of these contacts has not been implemented 
yet115. The milestone under the Recovery and Resilience Plan approved in July 2021 requires 
Croatia  to  set  up  an  information  system  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  national  anti-
corruption measures  by the end of 2025116, and the Government  also  aims  to  ensure public 
access to a future register of lobbyists117.  

The State Audit Office continued to perform audits on political party financing. Political 
actors are obliged to use the Financial Control Information System, an internet-based platform, 
to submit their financial reports, which are, once submitted, available online on the web page 
of  the  State  Electoral  Commission118  without  restrictions,  including  names  of  private  and 
corporate donors. The amounts of annual donations are capped, as are the amounts that can be 

112  Article  4  of  the  Law  on  the  Prevention  of  Conflicts  of  Interest.  The  fulfilment  of  this  obligation  is  to  be 
followed by the anti-corruption coordination authority, while the Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts 
of Interest is tasked with supervising the obligation of municipal council members to declare becoming owners 
of a company (if above 5%). 

113  The absence of such detailed rules for members of Parliament and top executive functions was already noted 
in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 11, and in the 2021 
Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 14. 

114  Input from the Croatian Government for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 21. 
115  GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round - Compliance Report, p. 4-5. 
116  Council  Implementing  Decision  of  16  July  2021  on  the  approval  of  the  assessment  of  the  recovery  and 
resilience plan for Croatia, Milestone no. 237: ‘Setting up a new information system / platform to monitor 
different areas of corruption prevention: (1) protection of whistle-blowers, (2) right of access to information, 
(3) lobbying, […]’.  

117  Input from the Croatian Government for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 21. 
118  The  State  Electoral  Commission  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia  continued  to  perform  supervision  of  political 
activities, election campaign financing and financing of referendums according to the Act on the Financing of 
Political  Activities,  Election  Campaigns  and  Referendums.  Written  contribution  from  the  Government 
following the country visit to Croatia. 

16 

 
                                                 
spent for campaigning, depending on the type of elections119. In 2021, the Office carried out a 
financial audit of six independent Members of Parliament and found one irregularity. It also 
audited  45  political  parties,  where  most  irregularities  related  to  financial  statements  and 
accounting  operations120.  Overall,  the  Office  issued  278  recommendations.  Of  the  178 
recommendations given in previous audits, 50% had been implemented121. The Office informs 
the State Attorney's Office on all established violations of the law. 

Legislative amendments entered into force to ensure better protection of whistleblowers. 
The new Law on protection of reporters of irregularities was adopted in Parliament on 8 April 
2022 and it entered into force on 23 April 2022122,. According to the proposal for this law, the 
key  changes  compared  to  the  previous  law  relate  to  the  whistleblowers’  option  to  choose 
between internal and external reporting channels, the explicit prohibition of retaliation against 
whistleblowers, including sanctioning for such acts, the obligation to provide feedback to the 
whistleblower on the status of their report, sanctioning of unlawfully revealing the identity of 
whistleblowers  and  oversight  over  implementation  by  the  competent  inspectorate.  The 
Ombudsperson is the designated external reporting authority and is envisaged to hire five new 
people in 2022 for the purpose of implementation of this law123. 

Appeals in public procurement procedures, a high-risk area for corruption, remained at 
a high level. No new measures were taken in 2021 to mitigate corruption risk in procurement 
during  the  COVID-19  pandemic124.  In  2021,  the  State  Commission  for  the  Supervision  of 
Public Procurement Procedures received 1 157 appeals (requests for review before the State 
Commission), a slight increase compared to 2020. Improvements to its internal organisation 
processes  have  further  expanded  its  administrative  capacity,  which  led  to  a  shortening  of 
review procedures125. The State Commission is only competent to check the public procedure 
starting  from  publication  of  tender  documentation  until  the  award  decision  becomes  final. 
According  to  the  State  Commission,  most  of  the  corruption  activities  occur  before  the 
procurement procedure starts and after the contract has been awarded126. In some cases, the 
State Commission can detect certain misconduct during the procedure, connected to corruption 
risks127.  In  order  to  improve  the  detection  of  corruption  in  public  procurement,  the  State 
Commission envisages closer cooperation with the State Attorney’s Office128. The safeguards 

119  The spending limit went up in 2019 from approximately EUR 200 000 to 500 000 and pre-campaign spending 
is not regulated, which has sparked criticism from civil society. Contribution received from the NGO Građani 
organizirano nadgledaju glasanje (GONG) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

120  Information received from the State Audit Office in the context of the country visit for Croatia. 
121  Of these 178 recommendations, 17% were not implemented, and 27% partially implemented or in the process 
of implementation, and due to non-implementation of activities 6% of recommendations are not applicable. 
Written contribution from the State Audit Office following the country visit to Croatia.  

122  Written contribution from the Government following the country visit to Croatia. 
123  Written contribution from the Government following the country visit to Croatia. 
124  Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 28. 
125  Written  contribution  from  the  State  Commission  for  the  Control  of  Public  Procurement  Procedures  in  the 

context of the country visit to Croatia, and input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 17. 

126  These occur in the phase of preparation of tender documentation and in the execution phase, respectively, see 
written  contribution  from  the  State  Commission  for  the  Control  of  Public  Procurement  Procedures  in  the 
context of country visit. 

127  One  example  is  the  State  Commission’s  decision  relating  to  manipulation  when  submitting  bids: 
https://pdf.dkom.hr/dokumentit/202110251315428451.pdf, which was confirmed by the High Administrative 
Court: https://pdf.dkom.hr/dokumentit/202202081128113912.pdf . 

128  Information from the State Commission received in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

17 

 
                                                 
for  the  State  Commission’s  independence,  particularly  regarding  the  appointment  and 
discipline of the members of the State Commission, could be further improved129. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The Croatian legal framework on media freedom and pluralism is based on the Constitution 
and sectoral legislation. The legal framework guarantees the basic right for information and the 
access to public documents. The revised Electronic Media Act was adopted in October 2021, 
transposing  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive130,  and  updating,  amongst  others, 
provisions on  the transparency  of state  advertising and media ownership as well as making 
changes to the rules on media concentration. Preparations to revise the Media Act, the second 
pillar  of  the  legal  framework  concerning  media  and  in  particular  the  press,  continue.  The 
revision  of  the  Media  Act  is  also  expected  to  improve  the  framework  for  the  access  to 
information for journalists131. 

The revised Electronic Media Act has brought some changes with regard to qualification 
requirements for  the  members of the Council for Electronic Media.  The Council is  the 
governing body of the Agency for Electronic Media, the media regulatory authority. While the 
revision of the Electronic Media Act expanded the tasks of the authority, there have been no 
major  changes  regarding  its  structure  or  resources.  However,  the  revision  includes  new 
professional qualification requirements for members of the Council for Electronic Media132. 
The  appointment  procedure  remains  unchanged.  Following  a  proposal  by  the  Government 
(based on a public call for nominations), the Council members are appointed by simple majority 
in  Parliament  for  a  renewable  five-year  mandate.  This  appointment  of  the  body  under  the 
control of the parliamentary majority continues to be raised as potentially compromising the 
political  independence  of  the  regulator133.  The  financial  independence  of  the  Agency  for 
Electronic Media remains ensured134.  

The  establishment  of  an  independent,  self-regulatory  body  for  the  media  is  being 
discussed,  but  lacks  consensus  among  media  stakeholders  on  the  way  forward.  As 
described in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, there is currently no independent, self-regulatory 

129  This concerns the independence of the body proposing the candidates and deciding on disciplinary measures. 
Currently, the Government proposes, based on public vacancy, the candidates to Parliament for appointment 
as members of the State Commission without the involvement of an independent body. Parliament would also 
decide  on  potential  disciplinary  responsibility  of  the  members.  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras. 66 and 69. According to EU law,  the requirement of 
independence means that the disciplinary regime regarding judges must display the necessary guarantees in 
order to prevent that the regime is used as a system of political control of the content of judicial decisions. 

130  Complete transposition of the AVMSD was notified to the Commission on 26 October 2021. 
131  Croatia ranks 48th in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index, compared to 56th in the 

previous year. 

132  In  addition  to  previously  existing  provisions  preventing  potential  Council’  members  from  being,  amongst 
others, government officials, persons holding an office in the bodies of political parties or having business 
interests  in  the  media  sector,  there  are  now  additional  qualification  requirements  for  the  members  to  have 
completed graduate university studies or specialist professional graduate study programmes and who have the 
expertise, competences and work experience in the field of media, journalism, technology, economy, sociology 
and law (Electronic Media Act, Article 76 ; Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report). 

133  2022  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  pp.  8-11;  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law 
situation in Croatia, p. 16, and information received from civil society and journalist’s organisations in the 
context of the country visit to Croatia. 

134  2022  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  p.  11  and  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law 

situation in Croatia, p. 16. 

18 

 
                                                 
media council representing both journalists and the press and news media publishers135. The 
self-regulatory Code of Ethics and the relevant Ethics Council of the Journalists’ Association 
remain limited to the journalists represented and do not include news media publishers. While 
the Government refers to the establishment of a self-regulatory body for the media as one of 
the main issues for the revision of the Media Act, there does not yet seem to be agreement on 
the way forward among concerned stakeholders136. Should media stakeholders find consensus, 
such  a  body  could  serve  a  valuable  role  in  addressing  concerns  of  both  journalists  and 
publishers and give a strong, independent representation to the media sector.  

Improvements were implemented regarding the transparency of media ownership. With 
the revised Electronic Media Act, the ownership information for audiovisual and digital media 
on the website of the Agency for Electronic Media now needs to be supported by an extract 
from the register of ultimate beneficial ownership. Moreover, the revised law requires media 
service  providers  to  publish  information  on  their  ownership  structure  on  their  website. 
Ownership information on print media continues to be collected by the Chamber of Commerce 
and is published in the Official Journal. Croatia’s Recovery and Resilience Plan requires the 
Government to set up an information system to publish information on ownership of media by 
the  end  of  June  2026137.  To  follow-up  on  this  milestone,  the  Government  envisages  the 
development of a single public database for all types of media138. Stakeholders claim that in 
certain  cases  underlying  ownership  structures  remain  hidden139,  as  evidenced  by  reports 
pointing to issues around the question of ownership in the allocation of radio frequencies140. It 
will still need to be seen whether the changes in the revised Electronic Media Act will be able 
to ensure full transparency on media ownership. The 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor indicates 
a medium risk for the transparency of media ownership141. 

The reform of the Electronic Media Act includes changes in the framework for media 
concentration. The Electronic Media Act lays down detailed rules on the granting of licences 
and  concessions  to  media  service  providers.  Media  service  providers  are  required  to  notify 
relevant changes in their shareholder structure (above 1% of the value of share capital). The 
revision  of  the  Electronic  Media  Act  has  ended  the  prohibition  of  vertical  concentration 
between broadcasters and operators. A provider of media services and electronic publications 
whose total annual revenue has reached 40% of all providers is considered to have reached a 
dominant role in the market, and is then prohibited amongst others from acquiring new licences 
or concessions and launching new electronic publications142. Moreover, the Electronic Media 

135  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 9.; 2021 Media Pluralism 

Monitor, p. 16. 

136  Information  received  from  the  Croatian  Newspaper  Publishers’  Association,  the  Croatian  Journalists’ 

Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

137  Council  Implementing  Decision  of  16  July  2021  on  the  approval  of  the  assessment  of  the  recovery  and 
resilience  plan  for  Croatia,  Milestone  no.  27:  ‘[…]  A  database  and  a  system  of  disclosure  of  ownership 
structures and funding sources shall be set up by the Electronic Media Agency, including the creation of a 
register of obliged entities and the provision of all necessary technical preconditions to enable all media to 
fulfil their obligations in a simple and efficient manner’.  

138  Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 
139  Information received from media stakeholders and journalist’s organisations in the context of the country visit 
to Croatia; Contribution from GONG for the 2022 Rule of Law Report; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 13. 
140  Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia from the Croatian Newspaper Publishers’ 
Association,  the  Croatian  Journalists’  Association,  the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Media  and  the  Agency  for 
Electronic Media. 

141  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 12. 
142  Electronic Media Act, Article 65. 

19 

 
                                                 
Act  continues  to  set  thresholds  for  cross-media  concentration  (for  example  for  national 
broadcasting concessions and publishers of daily newspapers). The Media Act contains further 
rules for the written press.  

Rules on state advertising in local and regional media were revised, but a need remains 
to further strengthen the framework, including on the new public tender procedure. As 
mentioned  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  stakeholders  report  that  state  advertising  often 
undermines  the  political  independence  of  media  outlets,  notably  at  local  level143.  The 
Electronic  Media  Act  continues  to  require  public  authorities  and  institutions  as  well  as 
predominately state-owned companies to spend 15% of their annual funds earmarked for the 
promotion of their services or activities, for advertising in regional or local television or radio 
programmes  or  electronic  publications144.  Such  entities  need  to  report  to  the  Council  for 
Electronic Media and publish relevant data on advertising on their websites145. With the revised 
Electronic Media Act, funds for promotion by public institutions and state-owned companies 
need  to  be  distributed  based  on  a  public  call  listing  criteria146.  However,  the  law  does  not 
contain any details regarding these criteria or the related procedure. In particular, there appear 
to be no safeguards regarding the authority that adopts and implements these criteria147. In this 
regard,  it  will  be  important  to  establish  good  practices  and  effective  oversight  measures  to 
ensure the well-functioning of the new public tender procedure. As highlighted  in the 2021 
Rule of Law Report, in particular regional and local media outlets are often considered heavily 
dependent on the advertising from local authorities, creating potential to undermine editorial 
independence148.  Some  stakeholders  reported  that  state  advertising  (e.g.  in  the  form  of 
sponsoring for conferences or events) may also undermine the political independence of media 
outlets  at  national  level149.  The  2022  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  indicates  a  medium  risk 
regarding the state regulation of resources and support to media sector, stating that “[r]ules on 
the distribution of state advertising to media outlets are unclear”150.  

The  framework  on  public  service  media  contains  independence  safeguards,  but  some 
concerns exist regarding the management of the public service broadcaster. The public 
service broadcaster HRT is governed by the Law on the Croatian Radio and Television, which 
guarantees  the  independence  of  HRT  from  political  interference.  The  law  lays  down 
programme  principles  for  the  public  service  broadcaster.  HRT  and  the  government  sign 
recurring five-year contracts on the programming of the broadcaster. HRT is managed by a 
Director  General  with  a  five-year  term  who  is  accountable  to  the  Supervisory  Board. 
Following a public call by the Supervisory Board, the Director General is appointed by simple 
majority by the Parliament. Four out of the five members of the Supervisory Board are equally 
appointed  by  the  Parliament,  with  an  employee  representative  as  the  fifth  member. 
Additionally, the Programme Council (consisting of nine members appointed by Parliament 

143  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 9; 2021 Media Pluralism 

Monitor, p. 17. 

144  Electronic Media Act, Article 38. This obligation applies only to public authorities and institutions as well as 
predominately state-owned companies that have funds in their budgets to promote their services or activities. 

145  Electronic Media Act, Article 38. 
146  Electronic Media Act, Article 39. 
147  For example, the same public authority, institution or state-owned company could adopt and implement a set 
of criteria for a given call, which could result in issues regarding the fair and transparent allocation of funds 
under the call.  

148  Statement of 11 January 2022 by the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists, Support on independence of local 

media. 

149  Information received from GONG in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
150  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, pp. 16. 

20 

 
                                                 
and  two  employee  representatives)  represents  the  public  interest  and  monitors  the 
programming activities of HRT. The Supervisory Board reports annually to Parliament on the 
legality  of  HRT's  activities  and  financial  operation,  while  the  Programme  Council  reports 
annually on implementation of the programme. The system gives the parliamentary majority 
a  decisive  influence  over  the  public  service  media  which  could  be  a  factor  potentially 
compromising the political independence of HRT. In 2021, the then Director General of HRT 
was  dismissed  following  a  corruption  investigation,  raising  questions  regarding  the 
effectiveness of safeguards in place regarding the supervision of HRT management151. The 
independent financing of HRT is guaranteed by a monthly fee collected from households, set 
by the Supervisory Board152. The relevant indicator of the 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor on 
the independence of public service media flags a high risk153.  

The legal framework guarantees access to information, but delays in the processing of 
requests  from  journalists  by  public  authorities  remain  an  issue.  The  Information 
Commissioner  ensures  the  implementation  of  the  Right  of  Access  to  Information  Act.  Its 
Office continues to be active to follow-up on access to information requests by journalists. 
According to the Office of the Information Commissioner, the institution received over 43 
complaints from journalists in 2021 (27 of these cases related to failures to resolve requests 
for  access  to  information  within  the  legal  deadline)154.  Journalist  stakeholders  flag 
considerable  delays  in  their  requests  for  access  to  information.  The  2022  Media  Pluralism 
Monitor  indicates  a  medium  risk  regarding  the  protection  of  right  to  information155.  The 
planned  revision  of  the  Media  Act  could  provide  an  opportunity  to  improve  the  legal 
framework for access to information for journalists.  

While physical aggressions remain limited, there continue to be cases of verbal attacks 
against journalists, including by prominent politicians156. Since the last report, the Council 
of Europe’s Platform  to  promote the protection of journalism  and safety  of journalists has 
registered eight alerts relating to events in Croatia157. For the same period, the Mapping Media 
Freedom project lists 15 incidents in Croatia158. There have been a limited number of physical 
attacks  against  journalists  covering  protests  against  COVID-19  pandemic  measures159. 
Stakeholders indicate that police authorities generally follow-up on cases of violence against 
journalists160.  

151  Reporters without Borders, Croatia; information received from civil society and journalists’ organisations in 

the context of the country visit.  

152  HRT Law, Art. 35.  
153  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 17. 
154  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Croatia  from  the  Office  of  the  Information 

Commissioner. 

155 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 10. 
156  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Deputy Mayor 
of Split Threatens Nikolina Lulic, Editor and Journalist of Slobodna Dalmacija, no. 77/2022; N1 (30.04.2022), 
Journalists’ Association asks president to stop insulting their profession; European Federation of Journalists 
(15.12.2021),  Croatia:  fact-checking  portal  Faktograf.hr  threatened  with  death  and  lawsuits;  Information 
received in the context of the country visit to Croatia from the Croatian Journalists’ Association.  
157  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Croatia. 
158  Mapping Media Freedom, Croatia (as of 13 May 2022). 
159  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists,  Journalists 
Attacked while Covering Covid-19 Protests, no. 222/2021; Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of 
Law Report, pp. 19-21; Reporters without Borders, Croatia. 

160  Information received in the context of the country visit to Croatia from the Croatian Journalists’ Association 

and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists. 

21 

 
                                                 
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) targeting journalists remains a 
significant concern161. SLAPP continue to pose a significant financial risk to journalists and 
have  an  important  intimidating  effect  on  media162.  A  survey  by  the  Croatian  Journalists’ 
Association in March 2022 counted 951 active lawsuits against journalists and the media in 
Croatia (compared to 924 in 2021 and 905 in 2020)163. These lawsuits, which often target the 
journalist personally (not the media outlet), continue to have a strong impact on the concerned 
media  outlets,  threatening  the  existence  of  smaller,  local  media  outlets  and  freelance 
journalists164. There continue to be a number of examples of such lawsuits against journalists 
by  politicians  or  public  officials,  including  judges165.  Many  of  the  SLAPP  cases  against 
journalists  are  based  on  charges  of  defamation,  shaming  or  insult166.  Stakeholders  have 
repeatedly called upon the Government to address this issue167. The expert working group set 
up by Croatian authorities on SLAPPs held first meetings and a workshop168. While involved 
journalist representatives generally appreciate the setup of this group169, more concrete action 
by  the  Government  seems  to  be  required  to  address  this  serious  concern,  both  in  the  legal 
framework and the practical application. For example, stakeholders propose to decriminalise 
defamation and to increase the awareness of judges on issues concerning SLAPP170. As stated 
in the Commission Recommendation on SLAPP171, changes to the framework should ensure 
procedural safeguards to grant an early dismissal of manifestly unfounded court proceedings 
are in place, and that rules applicable to defamation do not have an unjustified impact on the 
work of journalists and the existence of an open, free and plural media environment172. 

161  Reporters without Borders, Croatia; 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in 

Croatia, p. 18-19. 

162  Article 19 (2022), SLAPPs against journalists across Europe, p. 41; Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2022 

Rule of Law report, pp. 19-21. 

163  According to additional input received from Croatian authorities: ‘Pursuant to the official data of the Ministry 
of the Justice and Administration, in respect to civil proceedings, during 2021 total of 271 proceedings were 
initiated in which the defendants are journalists, while in 2020 the number of initiated number of proceedings 
was 394, in 2019 it was 314, and in 2018 there were 420 initiated civil proceedings.’ In addition, official data 
provided by Croatian authorities indicate that 27 criminal proceedings involving journalists were launched in 
2021. Additional input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

164  Article 19 (2022), SLAPPs against journalists across Europe, p. 41. 
165  Article 19 (2022), SLAPPs against journalists across Europe, p. 42; Council of Europe, Platform to promote 
the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Telegram.hr Editor-in-chief Jelena Valentić Faces New 
Lawsuit, no. 159/2022. 

166  Article 19 (2022), SLAPPs against journalists across Europe, pp. 41. 
167  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 18-19, and 2020 Rule 

of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, pp. 14-15. 

168  Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 44.  
169  Information received from the Croatian Journalists’ Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists 

in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

170  Information received from the Croatian Journalists’ Association and the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists 
in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Croatia.  While  the  offence  of  strong  shaming  was  removed  from  the 
Criminal Code in 2019, journalists continue to face SLAPP cases based on charges of defamation, shaming or 
insult. 

171  Commission Recommendation of 27.4.2022 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage 
in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against 
public participation’), C(2022) 2428 final. 

172  The  Recommendation  also  provides  for  other  measures  including  awareness-raising,  training  to  legal 
professionals such as judges, support mechanisms to journalists and other targets of SLAPP, as well as data 
collection, reporting and monitoring. 

22 

 
                                                 
IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Croatia  has  a  unicameral  parliamentary  system  of  government,  in  which  the  Constitutional 
Court  can  carry  out  ex-post  constitutional  reviews,  including  in  concrete  cases  based  on  a 
constitutional  complaint.  Draft  laws  can  be  tabled  by  any  member  of  the  Parliament  or  the 
Government.  The  People’s  Ombudsperson,  with  A-status173,  who  is  responsible  for  the 
promotion and protection of human rights and freedoms and fulfills the role of the National 
Human Rights Institution, the Information Commissioner, and the Ombudsperson for Gender 
Equality174, which fulfils the role of the equality body, are all independent bodies that play a 
role in the system of checks and balances.  

The  number  and  duration  of  public  consultations  increased,  which  resulted  in  more 
participants providing their comments. In 2021, public consultation conducted through the 
central  state  consultations  portal  ‘e-Consultations’  and  coordinated  by  the  Government 
Legislation  Office,  returned  to  the  usual  pre-pandemic  level175.  The  average  length  of 
consultation also increased to 21 days (17 days in 2020); however, only about 10% lasted more 
than 30 days. The number of participants and comments increased and more observations were 
fully/partially accepted176. After warnings by the Information Commissioner, the number of 
comments  that  remained  unanswered  dropped  to  the  lowest  level  since  2018177.  In  August 
2021,  a  two-year  project  started  to  bring  procedural  and  functional  improvements  to  the  e-
Consultations portal, as well as its expansion to local and regional self-government units178. 
The  stakeholders  consider  that  online  public  consultations  should  not  be  conducted  at  the 
expense of face-to-face discussions on drafts, which have an added value compared to online 
comments179. For business stakeholders, the quality of law-making in general is an important 
factor  for  investor  confidence  and  a  reason  for  concern  about  effectiveness  of  investment 
protection for 32% of companies in Croatia180. 

Parliament further decreased the use of emergency procedures, but the lack of recording 
of voting in some remote sessions remains problematic.  In 2021, the Parliament adopted 
31% of laws using the urgent procedure, a decrease compared to previous years (51% in 2020, 
47% in 2019)181. The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the IT system does not allow for the 
recording of the votes cast by individual members of Parliament when exercising their duties 
in parliamentary sessions organised through remote access182. The recording of votes cast in 

173  According to the Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles). 
174  It should be noted that the mandate of the Ombudsperson for Gender equality can be terminated if his/her 

annual report is rejected in the Parliament. 

175  Written contribution from the Information Commissioner in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
176  In 2021, there  were 823 consultations (up from 749 in 2020).  In 2021, 8 466 participants (7,211 in 2020) 
submitted  23  476  comments  opinions  and  suggestions  (21  797  in  2020).  Among  these,  about  13%  were 
accepted  (8%  in  2020),  and  9%  were  partially  accepted  (7%  in  2020).  About  28%  of  comments  were  not 
accepted (about 10 p.p. more than in 2020) and to 8% there was no response. Written contribution from the 
Information  Commissioner  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Croatia  and  2021  Report  of  the  People’s 
Ombudsperson, p. 25.  

177  Only 7% in 2021, compared to 34% in 2020, 22% in 2019 and 13% in 2018.  Written contribution from the 

Information Commissioner in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

178  Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 45. 
179  Information received from Human Rights House in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
180  Figure  55, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard indicates that  ‘[F]requent changes  in legislation  or concerns about 
quality  of  the  law-making  process’  is  the  second  most  stated  reason  for  concern  about  effectiveness  of 
investment protection for companies in Croatia. 

181  Written contribution from the Parliament in the context of the country visit to Croatia.  
182  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 21. 

23 

 
                                                 
remote sessions, publishing of which is important for transparency of the democratic process 
and  accountability  of  the  members  of  Parliament,  remains  limited  to  situations  when  the 
parliamentary  staff  can  count  the  votes  manually  by  counting  the  hands  of  deputies 
participating remotely. As stated in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, Parliament requested the 
Government to submit to it, three times per year, a report on the effects of the implementation 
of  the  Act  on  the  Protection  of  the  Population  against  Contagious  Diseases,  as  long  as  the 
decision on the proclamation of the epidemic remains in  force183.  In 2021, the Government 
submitted such reports in January, July and September, and in 2022 in February184. They were 
discussed before the Parliament and were adopted by a majority vote. 

The  Constitutional  Court  reviewed  certain  COVID-19  emergency  measures  and 
accumulated backlog due to lack of resources. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
the Constitutional Court delivered 80 judgments relating to the emergency measures, in which 
it  reviewed  five  laws  and  26  decisions  of  the  Civil  Protection  Authority185,  which  was 
empowered by law to issue restrictive measures186. For example, on 21 December 2021 the 
Constitutional Court rejected the proposal for a constitutional review of the Law on Protection 
of the Population from the Contagious Diseases and the Law on the System of Civil Protection. 
In  its  judgment,  the  Constitutional  Court  expressed  the  expectation  that  in  the  future  the 
measures taken in this context would contain a written explanation so that the addressees of 
such  measures,  as  well  as  the  public,  are  informed  of  the  reasons  for  adopting  a  particular 
measure, and which demonstrate that the constitutional principle of proportionality has been 
respected187.  The  Court  has  been  addressing  its  efficiency  challenges,  and  has  reduced  its 
backlog compared to 2009. However, at the end of 2021, the backlog still amounted to more 
than 6 000 cases, most of them constitutional complaints188. While the Court resolved more 
cases in 2021 (compared to 2020), incoming cases increased 30% in the same period. The Court 
currently employs about 40 advisers, and seeks additional financial resources to employ more 
in order to tackle the backlog189.  

On 1 January 2022, Croatia had 25 leading judgments of the European Court of Human 
Rights pending implementation190. At that time, Croatia’s rate of leading judgments from the 
past 10 years that remained pending was at 25% and the average time that the judgments had 
been pending implementation was 4 years and 3 months191. This figure takes into account the 
oldest leading judgment, pending implementation for 14 years, which concerns the failure to 

183  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 21. 
184  Written contribution from Parliament in the context of the country visit to Croatia and input from Croatia for 

the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 47-48. 

185  Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
186  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 20. 
187  Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 47-48. 
188  Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
189  Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
190  The  adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a  judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken.  

191  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases that 
are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2022. See the Contribution from the European 
Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 32.  

24 

 
                                                 
carry out an effective investigation into a racist attack192 and was pending as of 1 January 2022 
but has since been implemented193. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending 
implementation has decreased to 21194. 

Challenges  exist  regarding  the  follow-up  to  and  monitoring  of  the  People’s 
Ombudsperson’s recommendations, and on access to information. In 2021, a new People’s 
Ombudsperson was elected, alongside with three Deputies. Given her expanded tasks regarding 
the  protection  of  whistleblowers,  financial  resources  were  increased195.  According  to  the 
Ombudsperson,  despite  some  positive  steps  in  2021  regarding  access  to  information  on  the 
treatment  of  irregular  migrants,  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  continues  to  deny  the 
Ombudsperson direct access to information in their information system196. The law gives the 
Ombudsperson  access  to  all  such  types  of  information  and  officials  employed  in  the 
Ombudsperson’s  Office  have  the  necessary  clearance  for  handling  secret  data197.  The 
Ombudsperson takes also part in advisory role of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism 198. 
According to the Ministry of the Interior, its rules prescribe that police officers cannot provide 
unauthorised  persons  with  access  to  the  Information  System  of  the  Ministry  (which  would 
represent a serious breach of official duty) and that the Ombudsperson can request a printout 
of  data 
in 
Ombudsperson’s  annual  reports,  the  Governmental  Office  for  Human  Rights  and  Rights  of 
National Minorities was formally tasked with systematic monitoring of their implementation 
and is currently collecting data from a range of government bodies for the purpose of preparing 
a comprehensive response to Ombudsperson’s 2021 Report. According to the Ombudsperson, 
the Governmental Office was not fulfilling this obligation in the past200. In December 2021, 

Information  System199.  Regarding 

recommendations 

issued 

from 

the 

192  Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 31 May 2007, Secic v. Croatia, 40116/02, pending since 

2014. 

193  The case has been implemented as of 6 April 2022. 
194  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
195  By 12% for 2021 and 2022 (compared to 2020). Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 48. 
According  to  the  People’s  Ombudsperson,  a  fourth  Deputy  would  be  needed,  especially  in  light  of  new 
competences regarding whistleblowers and considering that the Deputies have management responsibilities. 
To be noted that no heads of units/departments within the People’s Ombudsperson’s Office exist. Contribution 
from the ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4. 

196  In  2021,  the  situation  improved  and  Ombudsperson  was  given  access  to  information  on  paper  during 
Ombudsperson’s visits to police stations (both announced and unannounced), but not to information available 
in the online information system of the Police (including information on migrants and procedures undertaken). 
Contribution  from  the  ENNHRI  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  5;  information  received  from  the 
Ombudsperson’s Office in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

197  Information received from the Ombudsperson’s Office in the context of the country visit to Croatia. The 2021 
Rule  of  Law  Report  stated  that  recommendations  of  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights 
Institutions  to  ensure  that  national  institutional  structures,  such  as  the  Ombudsperson,  are  given  access  to 
information in order to ensure independent, proper and expeditious investigations, are particularly relevant in 
the light of the allegations about pushbacks at external borders, with a view to ensuring that fundamental rights 
are at all times respected. 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, 
pp. 20-21. 

198  The  Advisory  Committee  of  the  Independent  Monitoring  Mechanism  comprises  representatives  of  the 
European Commission, Fundamental Rights Agency, Frontex, EASO, the Ombudsperson, the Ombudsperson 
for Children, the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality, as well as IOM and UNCHR. Input from Croatia for the 
2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 48. 

199  In  this  regard,  the  Border  Police  Directorate  has  made  a  template  form  for  receiving  requests  from  the 
Ombudsperson for printouts from the Information System of the Ministry of the Interior. Written contribution 
from the Ministry of the Interior following the country visit to Croatia. 

200  Contribution  from  the  ENNHRI  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  6.  The  Ombudsperson  monitors  the 

implementation of recommendations from the Annual Report. 

25 

 
                                                 
the  national  authorities,  according 

the Government established the Council for Human Rights, a new consultative body, which 
held a first session on Government’s response to Ombudsperson’s recommendations201. In past 
years, 
the  Ombudsperson,  fulfilled  26%  of 
recommendations given in the 2018 Report and only 20% of those given in the 2019 Report, a 
share that increased to 43% of recommendation given in the 2020 Report202. Furthermore, the 
Government did not reply in about 50% of the recommendations given by the Ombudsperson 
in  the 2020 Report (60% of those  given in  the  2019 Report)203.  In 2021, the newly  elected 
Ombudsperson had to present before Parliament three annual reports at once, which had not 
been discussed until then (for 2018-2020)204 and which, in her view, makes the findings less 
relevant, and impacts negatively on the implementation of the recommendations205.  

to 

While some preparatory steps have been taken, the Government has not progressed in 
drafting and adopting the new National Plan for Creating an Enabling Environment for 
the Civil Society Development 2021-2027206. The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the 
National Plan, intended to further improve the legal, financial and institutional support system 
for the activities of civil society organisations, was still under preparation207. On 4 February 
2022, the Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs took steps to appoint members of 
the  expert  working  group  to  draft  the  National  Plan,  who  are  expected  to  start  work  in  the 
autumn208. In 2021, the Government Office contracted 94 projects worth approximately EUR 
5.7 million from the European Social Fund209. The civic space in Croatia is considered to be 
narrowed210. In May 2021, during the campaign for local elections in capital Zagreb, elements 
of  a  smear  and  disinformation  campaign  against  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs)  were 
carried  out  by  certain  political  parties211.  According  to  a  stakeholder,  the  administrative 
burdens in public tenders and lengthy funding processes put in danger the financial viability of 
the CSOs sector212. 

201  The  Council  is  composed  of  governmental  and  non-governmental  members,  and  is  chaired  by  the  Deputy 
Prime Minister. Croatian Government (2022), Press release, Government establishes the Council for Human 
Rights. The second session on 25 April 2022, also covered the Ombudsperson’s recommendation. Croatian 
Government (2022), Press release, Second session of the Council for Human Rights held. 

202  2021  Report  from  the  People’s  Ombudsperson,  p.  208-209,  and  information  received  from  the 

Ombudsperson’s Office in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 

203  Information received from the Ombudsperson’s Office in the context of the country visit to Croatia. 
204  Contribution from the ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 
205  Contribution from the ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 5-6. 
206  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 22. 
207  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Croatia, p. 22. The National Plan 
would be a continuation of similar previous strategic documents, namely the National Strategy to create an 
enabling environment for the development of civil society for 2006 – 2011, and the National Strategy to create 
an enabling environment for the development of civil society for 2012 – 2016. 

208  Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 50. 
209  Within the call for proposals ‘Strengthening the capacity of Civil Society Organisation to respond to the needs 

of the local community’. Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 51. 

210  Rating given by Civicus, Croatia; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, 

repressed and closed. 

211  Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting 

fundamental rights – Croatia, p. 3. 

212  Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4.  

As regards funding of CSOs, certain changes have been introduced in recent years, in line with the relevant 
strategic framework, and partly in response to recent crises (COVID-19 pandemic, earthquakes). The general 
framework  for  financing  was  defined  in  2015  Regulation  on  Criteria,  Benchmarks  and  Procedures  for 
Financing  and  Contracting  Programmes  and  Projects  in  General  Public  Interest  Undertaken  by  non-
governmental organisations, which aims at ensuring more systematic financial support for programmes and 
projects carried out by CSOs. Written contribution from Government following the country visit to Croatia. 

26 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en. 

Article  19  (2022),  SLAPPs  against  journalists  across  Europe  https://www.article19.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/03/A19-SLAPPs-against-journalists-across-Europe-Regional-Report.pdf.  

Association  of  Judges  (2022),  Statement:  initiative  for  constitutional  review  of  security  checks 
http://uhs.hr/archives/1747. 

Association of Judges (2022) Statement of the President http://uhs.hr/archives/1602. 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021 – country report 
on Croatia. 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022 – country report 
on Croatia. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Croatia https://monitor.civicus.org/country/croatia/.  

Commission  for  the  Resolution  of  Conflicts  of  Interest  (2022),  Written  contribution  from  the 
Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest in the context of the country visit. 

Commission  Recommendation (EU)  2022/758  on  protecting journalists  and  human  rights  defenders 
who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic 
lawsuits against public participation’) 

Commissioner Didier Reynders (2021), Letter of 1 December 2021 to Minister of Justice Mr Malenica. 

Constitutional  Court 
https://sljeme.usud.hr/usud/praksaw.nsf/fOdluka.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C12570D
30061CE54C1258376002E2768. 

2018,  U-III-1709/2018 

18  December 

judgment 

(2018), 

of 

Constitutional  Court  (2018), 
judgment  of  22  May  2018,  U-I-3684/2015  https://narodne-
novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2018_06_57_1183.html?msclkid=fd344382a63611eca4ecb0179b8f761b.  

Constitutional  Court 
https://sljeme.usud.hr/usud/praksaw.nsf/fOdluka.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=C12570D
30061CE54C12585E60041C6A0. 

2020,  U-III-2390/2019 

September 

judgment 

(2020), 

17 

of 

Constitutional  Court  (2022),  decision  of  16  May  2022,  U-I-2215/2022,  U-I-2751/2022  and  U-I-
2875/2022 
https://sljeme.usud.hr/Usud/Praksaw.nsf/C12570D30061CE54C1258844003DCA0C/%24FILE/U-I-
2215-2022%20i%20dr.pdf. 

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Croatia 
https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287.  

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists (2022), 
Deputy Mayor  of  Split  Threatens  Nikolina  Lulic,  Editor  and  Journalist  of  Slobodna  Dalmacija,  no. 
77/2022 https://fom.coe.int/alerte/detail/107637182. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2000),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2000)19  of  the 
Committee of Ministers on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2016), Rule of Law Checklist (CDL-AD(2016)007rev). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2021), Moldova – Joint Opinion of the Venice Commission 
and the Directorate General of Human Rights and the Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on 
some  measures  related  to  the  selection  of  candidates  for  administrative  positions  in  bodies  of  self-

27 

 
administration  of  judges  and  prosecutors  and  the  amendment  of  some  normative  acts  (CDL-
AD(2021)046). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2022), Croatia - Opinion no. 1073/2021 on the Introduction 
of the procedure of renewal of security vetting through amendments to the Courts Act, CDL(2022)005. 

the  assessment  of 

Council of the European Union (2021), Council Implementing Decision of 16 July 2021 on the approval 
for  Croatia  with  Annex, 
of 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10687-2021-INIT/EN/pdf 
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_10680_2021_ADD_1&qid=1648472422094&from=EN. 

resilience  plan 

recovery  and 

and 

the 

Croatian Government (2022), Input from Croatia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Croatian Government (2022),  Press release: Government establishes the Council for Human Rights 
https://vlada.gov.hr/vijesti/vlada-imenovala-savjet-za-ljudska-prava/33780. 

Croatian  Government  (2022),  Press  release:  Second  session  of  the  Council  for  Human  Rights  held  
https://ljudskaprava.gov.hr/vijesti/odrzana-2-sjednica-savjeta-za-ljudska-prava/1069.  

Croatian  Parliament  (2021),  Press  release:  Croatian  Parliament  appoints  Robert  Šveb  as  new  HRT 
director-general  https://www.sabor.hr/en/press/news/croatian-parliament-appoints-robert-sveb-new-
hrt-director-general.  

Croatian Parliament (2021), Strategy for the Prevention of Corruption for 2021-2030 https://narodne-
novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2021_11_120_2069.html?msclkid=d70f04b9ae9411ecb759e10e3dee3f1c 

Croatian Parliament (2022), Written contribution from the Croatian Parliament in the context of the 
country visit. 

Directive (EU) 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions 
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in  Member States concerning the provision of 
audiovisual  media  services  (Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive)  in  view  of  changing  market 
realities. 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

ENNHRI (2022), Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European  Association  of  Judges  (2022),  Opinion  on  security  checks  on  judges,  7  February  2022 
http://uhs.hr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/EAJ_Opinion-for-The-Association-of-Croation-Judges-on-
repeated-security-checks.pdf. 

European Civic Forum (2022),  Contribution from European Civic Forum for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Croatia.  

European Commission (2020), 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Croatia. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

28 

 
European Commission (2022), 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 31 May 2007, Secic v. Croatia, 40116/02. 

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Franet,  Centre  for  Peace  studies,  Human  Rights  House  Zagreb  (2022),  Country  research  -  Legal 
environment  and  space  of  civil  society  organisations  in  supporting  fundamental  rights  –  Croatia, 
Vienna,  EU  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-
2022-update#country-related.  

GONG (2022), Contribution from GONG for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report on Croatia on preventing corruption 
and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. 

Information  Commissioner  (2022),  Written  contribution  from  the  Information  Commissioner  in  the 
context of the country visit. 

Ministry of Justice and Public Administration (2022), Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice 
and Public Administration in the context of the country visit. 

OECD (2002), Fighting Transnational Bribery in Croatia, Assessment of Legal and Policy Frameworks 
https://doi.org/10.1787/90d486ae-en.  

People’s  Ombudsperson  (2020),  2019  Report  https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-
pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2019-godinu/?wpdmdl=7580&refresh=6283951a220471652790554. 

People’s  Ombudsperson  (2021),  2020  Report  https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-
pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2020-godinu/?wpdmdl=10845&refresh=623b449e210741648051358. 

People’s  Ombudsperson  (2022),  2021  Report  https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-
pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2021-godinu/?wpdmdl=13454&refresh=628394b9bf4e41652790457. 

Reporters  without  Borders 
https://rsf.org/en/country/croatia.  

(2022),  World 

Press 

Freedom 

Index 

–  Croatia 

State  Attorney’s  Office  (2022),  2021  Report  https://dorh.hr/sites/default/files/dokumenti/2022-
04/DORH_IZVJESCE_2021.pdf. 

State Attorney’s Office (2022), Written contribution from the State Attorney’s Office in the context of 
the country visit. 

State Audit Office (2022), Written contribution from the State Audit Office in the context of the country 
visit. 

State Commission for the Control of Public Procurement Procedures (2022), Written contribution from 
the State Commission for the Control of Public Procurement Procedures in the context of the country 
visit. 

State  Judicial  Council  (2021),  2020  Report  on  the  work  of  the  State  Judicial  Council 
https://drzavnosudbenovijece.hr/hr/izvjesca-o-radu. 

State  Judicial  Council  (2022),  2021  Report  on  the  work  of  the  State  Judicial  Council 
https://drzavnosudbenovijece.hr/hr/izvjesca-o-radu. 

Report 
Supreme 
http://www.vsrh.hr/custompages/static/HRV/files/2022dok/Izvjestaji/Izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e%20za
%202021.pdf.  

(2022), 

Court 

2021 

Supreme 
Report 
http://www.vsrh.hr/custompages/static/HRV/files/2022dok/Izvjestaji/Izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e%20za
%202021.pdf. 

(2022), 

Court 

2021 

29 

 
Supreme  Court:  General  Assembly  (2021),  Opinion  on  candidates  for  Supreme  Court  President 
http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/Sjednice/Misljene-opca%20sjednica%202021.pdf. 

Supreme  Court:  General  Assembly  (2021),  Statement:  regular  security  checks  on  judges  are 
unacceptable 
http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2021dok/Priopcenja/O%C4%8CITOVANJE%20n
a%20nacrt%20Kona%C4%8Dnog%20prijedloga%20ZID-a%20Zakona%20o%20sudovima.pdf. 

Supreme Court: General Assembly (2022),  Statement: initiative for constitutional review of security 
checks http://www.vsrh.hr/EasyWeb.asp?pcpid=564. 

Supreme Court: President (2022), Letter on external activities of judges to the State Judicial Council, 
Association  of  Judges,  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Public  Administration,  Parliament,  Association  of 
Journalists 
Tripalo 
NGO 
http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/2022dok/Priopcenja/IZVANSUDSKE%20AKTI
VNOSTI%20SUDACA%20-%20prijedlog.pdf. 

Miko 

and 

Trade  Union  of  Journalists  (2022),  Statement:  Support  on 
https://www.snh.hr/en/izjava-o-podrsci-neovisnosti-lokalnih-medija-skupstine-efj-a/. 

independence  of 

local  media 

Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. 

30 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Croatia 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in February 2022 with: 

  Agency for Electronic Media  
  Association of Judges (Judge Damir Kontrec) 
  Bar Association 
  Centre for Peace Studies 
  Commission for the Resolution of Conflicts of Interest 
  Constitutional Court 
  Croatian Journalists' Association 
  Croatian Newspaper Publishers' Association 
  Crosol 
  GONG 
  Government Legislation Office 
  Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs  
  HRT – Croatian Radio and Television (General Director and Programme Director) 
  Human Rights House 
  Ministry of Culture and Media 
  Ministry of Justice and Administration 
  Office of the Information Commissioner 
  Office of the Public Ombudsperson 
  Parliamentary National Council for Monitoring Anti-Corruption Strategy Implementation 
  PNUSKOK - specialised anti-corruption police 
  Secretariat of the Parliament 
  State Attorney’s Council 
  State Attorney’s Office (including USKOK-specialised anti-corruption prosecution) 
  State Audit Office 
  State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures 
  State Judicial Council 
  Supreme Court 
  Trade Union of Croatian Journalists 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute ( OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 

ILGA Europe 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 
International Press Institute 

31 

 
 
 
  Reporters Without Borders 
  Transparency International Europe 

32